campaignsfandomcom-20200223-history
Campaigns Wikia talk:Proportional Party Affiliation Guideline
Debates on the PPAG At a first glance, I like the idea, as it brings us closer to the non-partisan objective Jimmy Wales had for this site. However, I'd like to add that admins must not use their privileges to further any political view. Political representation should be balanced among sysops, but this should be just a symbol, as all admins should moderate articles and debates from a neutral position. The last thing we need is an edit war between admins. --ШΔLÐSΣИ 13:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC) :In a perfect world the political persuasions of admins would be "just a symbol". But the truth is that admins are not "moderating articles and debates from a neutral position" now. :For example, they have homosexual "marriage" categorized as a civil rights issue. I provided dozens of links showing how many people disagree that it is a civil right. I explained that by its very definition it is not a civil rights issue. That should have been the end of the discussion, but the liberal admins here weren't having it. I removed the "civil rights" category, they simply reinserted it. They ended up blocking me, and the topic is still miscategorized. A moderate or conservative admin would have understood the issue immediately and would have properly resolved it. Lou franklin 03:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC) ::Lou, you misunderstand the entire purpose of the site if you think that denying the viewpoints of others is the goal. For your example, if anyone considers same-sex marriage to be a civil rights debate, then the category belongs. Whether it is or is not depends on the person, so we should have all viewpoints expressed. Chadlupkes 04:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC) :::That, my friend, is "misunderstanding the entire purpose of the site". Adding topics to categories because one person thinks that it belongs makes the concept of categories totally meaningless. If that were the case, why couldn't I categorize capital punishment as "Cruel and unusual punishment"? Lou franklin 05:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC) ::::Well, in that particular example please do. Chadlupkes 13:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC) Innovative idea. I've got mixed feelings. How about other coutries? I'm in Australia, does that mean I cannot be an admin? Would you somehow align the Australian parties with the US parties? Would you say that Australia has a small population, so only 2% of the admins are Australian (for example). What about minority groups? What about people who approve of neither party, but have their own philosophy? Every POV is unique, we cannot be expected to represent our party of affiliation. Balancing the users is all very well, but balancing admins: you are proposing a kind of parliament of admins, who use their priveleges to further their views, and have 'wars'. I think you should change the policy so that we hold 'referendums' like wikipedia - and the weightage given to votes depends on party alignment, although that does not alleviate my concerns. --Nkayesmith 02:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC) :Very true. It seems the idea would encounter severe problems when applied. Maybe we would be better off creating a guideline for sysop neutrality or something like that. Also, on other discussions I've read (and agreed with) the idea that we cannot simply force less popular ideologies or parties to be ignored on Campaigns Wikia. --ШΔLÐSΣИ 02:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC) ::I am proposing a kind of parliament of admins, but not for the purpose of furthering their own views; for the purpose of preventing others from doing so. Conservatives won't come here because the admins won't give them a fair shake. The site is two months old and we have already seen that. You won't have a balanced site if all the admins think the same way. The ultimate vision is to get a balance of liberal and conservative users here. But if conservative users are constantly overruled by liberal admins, they won't come back and your site will suck. :::We are all advocating change in our own way to our own liking. The purpose of this site is not to encourage one view over another, it is to provide a place where we can agree to disagree, and be able to express our viewpoints and articulate our message in order to try and reach an understanding and move forward together as a community. A global community. Chadlupkes 04:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC) ::::Allowing the topic of homosexual "marriage" to be listed under "civil rights" is "encouraging one view over another". And nothing can be done about it because the admins here are liberal and don't see it that way. Lou franklin 05:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC) :::::And denying the category when someone tries to put it on the articles is even moreso. Chadlupkes 13:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC) ::Regarding the participation of Australians, it seems to me that politics in the USA are very different from politics in Australia. I think that this site should be divided by country. I think there should be a separate site for Australia (and Mexico, and Ireland, etc.) :::Of course the politics are different. It's that diversity that we're exploring and celebrating. And I believe that we should keep the sites based on language rather than location. We're all dealing with terrorist threats and we're all dealing with the threats of climate change. If we can learn to communicate across national borders, it will make us that much stronger and better able to handle difficult issues and help each other when needed. Chadlupkes 04:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC) ::::There are almost no political issues that can be discussed globally in a meaningful way. Even issues that affect us all affect us in different ways in different countries. The politics of handling "terrorist threats" is very different in the USA than it is in India. In terms of "climate change", we can discuss how hot it is, but beyond that, how deeply could we discuss the politics of that with somebody from Guam? Lou franklin 05:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC) :::::Terrorist threats will always be a matter of law enforcement, and international cooperation is the only effective means of gaining accurate intelligence and dealing with the threat without undue loss of life. Every country in the world recognizes that. And the more we in the United States hear stories about landowners in Guam losing their land to the sea due to rising ocean levels, the more we will have to think about how our actions are affecting the environment. That's about as political as you can get. Chadlupkes 13:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC) ::All politics are local. I, as an American, would not be able to comment intelligently about the issues of the day in Australia. The burning issues in Brazil are not the burning issues in China. I don't see this as one huge global site. Lou franklin 03:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC) :::I do see this as a global site. We're all in this together, whether we like it or not. Chadlupkes 04:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC) ::::"We're all in this together" is a glib cliche. We may all be in this together, but the politics of it are very different in different countries. Lou franklin 05:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC) :::::In no way should we start dividing the site. The whole idea of Campaigns Wikia is to provide a meeting ground for people who are interested in participatory politics, and "might not have anything else in common" (see the Mission Statement). The only reason we have different language sites is because it is simply impossible to comunicate, but a division by country would not be acceptable (later others would propose to separate by party, by ideology, by race, etc -- *obviously exaggerating to show the point*). Also, although politics are local, they all follow the same general guiding principals, and they all seek the same goals (to create more acceptable societies). :::::The PPAG guideline has an interesting proposal, which is to ensure the site is not monopolized by a particular view. However, it seems we might be better off with a different approach. I don't think the best way is to control the representation of different parties in the admins, but to ensure that all admins use their privileges to reach a balanced site. Lou, you have repeatedly accused us of privileging the liberal point of view. I think that's an unfair accusation, as you cannot expect us to endorse your edits if you impose them as insistently and uncooperatively as you did. Chad Lupkes made a very good decision, in my opinion: he made an effort to end the edit war by letting the community vote. That was probably the most neutral course of action possible. I do admit that Campaigns Wikia seems to have a larger liberal population up to now, but you must also acknowledge that no opinions have been supressed on this site. The quick ending of edit war (which are completely counter-productive to Campaigns Wikia) should not necessarily be viewed as a favoring of one point of view. :::::To end my long rant, I'd like to add that I hope this page does not gravitate to a one-sided debate (I found the example of Bush being imprisoned or just impeached very illustrating). To do that, I will try and embrace your proposals, Lou, as long as they respect other positions also. --ШΔLÐSΣИ 14:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC) I'd like to mention that the whole debate is a little out of touch. I'm not sure about other states, but in my state I believe that the majority of voters are independants. We would be best served by administrators that were less partisan, rather than a balance of ideologies. That's tough, though, because I think this site naturally attracts those that care enough to feel strongly. Unfortunately this makes it hard to create something that is palatable to people who are more representative of the population. This site also attracts very intelligent individuals, which makes it surprising to me that we have so much trouble writing more balanced and nuanced positions even if it means giving up a chance to get our personal points across. Also, I'm a lesbian from Massachusetts and I can still understand the basic objection the placement of gay marriage under the heading of civil rights issues. Why couldn't we place gay marriage, abortion, and similarly divisive topics under a special category that recognized the extreme polarization of the debate on those issues?--Vive42 15:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC) :Ooh, interesting. Perhaps Category:Controversies? Jfing[[Wikipedia:User:Jfingers88/Esperanza|'e']]rs88 15:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC) :Hi Vive. I see politics in general as attracting people who advocate strongly for various positions, so it's difficult to find moderates who won't do that in a political discussion on a political website. I'm personally much more focused on infrastructure building rather than policy crafting, but I do have my positions and values that I consider important. :I think the main obstacle to getting balanced position statements comes from that very fact, that the articles are being written by those who show up, and most of us are strong advocates of our viewpoints. :Controversies is a good suggestion. Do you have any other suggestions? Chadlupkes 15:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC) *I dislike every aspect of this idea on every level. First of all, I disagree with the assertion that there is roughly one conservative for every liberal, then I basically disagree with everything else said in the proposal. If this site attracts lots of liberals, so be it. If it attracts lots of conservatives, so be it. I think adminship etc should be entirely meritocratic. I will vote for people based only on the standard of their contributions, and urge everyone else invloved in this site to do the same. I'd rather vote for a conservative who doesn't let his conservatism get in the way of making a balanced contribution than someone who shares my views but uses editing to stop the expression of other views. ::On what grounds do you "disagree with the assertion that there is roughly one conservative for every liberal"? In the USA, Republicans control the Presidency, the House and the Senate. Who do you think voted them in if not conservatives? Lou franklin 23:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC) :::I might agree with "Roughly one Conservative for every Liberal" in the U.S., but saying that control of government offices proves a majority or even equality among voters demonstrates a lack of understanding of how elections in the U.S. work, particularly in the case of the presidency. Also, you seem to use the term "liberal" for Democrats as well as Libertarians (a party that frequently endorses Republican candidates), Greens... basically everyone who's not Republican. Under this definition, I'm sure that "liberals" outnumber Conservatives in the U.S. Your arguments are also extremely U.S.-centric, which is counter to the goals of this site. --whosawhatsis? 01:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC) ::::Baloney. Republicans control the government because more people voted for them. ::::Very rarely does a presidential candidate win the popular vote but lose in the Electoral College, but that is not the case here: Bush won both; Kerry lost both. ::::The number of conservatives in the real world is many times more than what is represented on this site. You can take the attitude "so be it", but the site will suck. It won't be representative of the real world, and will be so heavily biased to the left that there will be little point in coming here. ::::Also, I see nothing in the mission statement that says that discussing American politics "is counter to the goals of this site". ::::And, by the way, the number of registered "Greens" is miniscule. It is hardly worth arguing which bucket they get counted under. Lou franklin 02:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC) :::::I never claimed that the Right wasn't under-represented on this wiki. It is, and that's a shame, not only because of the lack of representation, but also because of skewed representation. Someone who didn't know better might read this and think that all conservatives are as belligerent as you. :::::"Very rarely does a presidential candidate win the popular vote but lose in the Electoral College, but that is not the case here." You're right, that's not the case this term. In 2004, most of the voters were conservative or otherwise willing to vote for a conservative candidate. Have you seen Bush's approval ratings recently? :::::The mission statement says that Campaigns Wikia "has the goal of bringing together people from diverse political perspectives who may not share much else." This does not exclude U.S. politics, which I never implied it did, but rather includes the "diverse political perspectives" of the rest of the world, which U.S.-centricity would deny. --whosawhatsis? 03:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC) ::::::Nothing like telling people they have "a lack of understanding" and then calling them "belligerent". That’s classic! ::::::If you oppose PPAG, how do you propose we accomplish "the goal of bringing together people from diverse political perspectives"? Isn’t saying "so be it" the same as giving up on the goal? Lou franklin 04:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC) :::::::The goal is to bring together people from diverse political perspectives, not to bring together people from diverse political perspectives and make them admins. Admins have no more control over the content than anyone else. If they had that kind of control, we wouldn't need proportional party affiliation among admins, we would need admins who are completely neutral. An admin's responsibility is to enforce policies and settle disputes fairly and to protect the wiki from vandalism. None of the conservatives contributing to this wiki have demonstrated that ability, so making them admins would be a mistake. --whosawhatsis? 05:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC) ::::::::Admins have far more control over the content than everybody else. I removed the homosexual "marriage" article from the "civil rights" category and I was blocked and my changes were reverted. ::::::::I personally have no interest in becoming an admin and would not serve if nominated. But if there are no conservatives serving as admins, the site will be dysfunctional. We have already seen that. Lou franklin 16:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC) And the article is very U.S-centred. I am neither a Democrat or a Republican (well, I am both with a small d and small r) as I am not American. Are we going to have proportional guidelines based on nationality too? And what about income or social class? This kind of measure quickly beomes unworkable. McLurker 09:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC) :Oh, and I find the "marriage" in inverted commas thing very annoying. It makes you look petty, tbh. If you can't bring youself to use the word marriage, say partnership or something. McLurker 10:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC) ::I'll say whatever I want. Those "inverted commas" are called quotation marks. The title of the page in question is "Same-sex marriage". Saying "partnership" doesn't properly identify the article. Saying "marriage" is incorrect since marriage is between a man and a woman. If you think that quotation marks are "inverted commas" then the proportional party affiliation guideline isn't your biggest problem. Lou franklin 22:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC) :::Let's bring the discussion back to PPAG, please! --ШΔLÐSΣИ 23:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC) :::We should probably have a Campaigns Wikia:Naming conventions page, complete with a British v. American section. Because it seems some people have problems with what people on the other side of the Big Puddle call things. Jfing[[Wikipedia:User:Jfingers88/Esperanza|'e']]rs88 03:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC) :::: A naming conventions page could be useful. However, those unwilling to make allowances for people from foreign parts generally won't bother looking up such a list. McLurker 13:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC) Unproductive Ferguson 17:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC) While I respect Lou's desire to ensure diversity of opinion (even though he often seems to lack the respect for others he demands from others), I think ultimately any policy that seeks to define people is not good, especially for a site that seeks to end the partisan politics created by mainstream media. First of all, you're making the assumption everyone may be broken into two categories, which would be okay if I wasn't so sure that those categories are very narrow. Ultimately, I think it boils down to respect the free exchange of ideas. And Lou, I think you would see a lot more respect coming your way if you showed a lot more. You seem to be playing this '94 Republican style and I can guarantee you that's the kind of style the majority of us are trying to jettison. Make compromises, play nice. We know you don't approve of same-sex marriage. There's no need to insult those who do. :I have no interest in insulting those who do. :I am not "making the assumption everyone may be broken into two categories". If there were 10 admins, maybe 3 could be Democrats, 3 could be Republicans, 2 could be Independent; you might have 1 Libertarian, and 1 "other". If that is the breakdown in the real world, and you want a site that is relevant and reflects the real world, then this is the approach to take. If, on the other hand, you want a site that is irrelevant and one-sided then you would appoint liberal admin after liberal admin. :The balanced approach matches the site's mission statement because it "brings together people from diverse political perspectives". Appointing 10 liberals and no conservatives does not. Lou franklin 02:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC) ::By "other" I suppose you mean "all the political parties in the world other than the Republicans, Democrats and Libertarians". Even if this was a US only site, where are the greens? They have about as much support as the Libertarians, right? ::Of course, we could say that we should appoint people whoose affiliation reflects the views of the US parties, but then you have the fact that almost everyone who gets into the US congress is to the right of the centre ground if you take the rest of the world into account (I suspect that the Democrats are in fact generally to the right of the centre in the US never mind the rest of the world). Is balance relative to the US system, relative to the views of the whole world, realtive to the views of the English-speaking world? Enacting this policy soon becomes far too complicated to ever be possible. McLurker 10:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC) :::Then what is your counter-proposal? Are you saying that we should abandon the mission of the site and not even strive for balance? If not, what alternative do you propose? Lou franklin 11:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC) ::::I don't believe you need two 'opposing' sides negotiating to be fair. I believe the admins we elect we should elect because they are able to see multiple sides on an issue and are able to identify their prejudices and act accordingly in a judgment situation. We shouldn't be electing admins who are closed-minded and highly prejudiced toward one 'side' just to balance out the other 'side.' ::::I understand that you personally, Lou, feel that you have been treated unfairly. I recommend posting on your talk page all the ways you feel you have been given the short end of the stick. Free speech is of utmost importance to me, so I'll get your back if there are any gross violations. But if this whole thing is to get Republicans more leverage on this site, I just can't go for it. The Monopoly of the Republocrats ::::I think the main thing for this site for admins to do is maintain civility on the NPOV sections. People with agendas should probably just police the NPOV sections to make sure things aren't out of hand, and then gravitate toward the 1POV sections. Like me. -- Ferguson 16:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC) Reconsideration This is a proposal. Reconsideration may be possible after amendments are made or a time period allowing additional members of the online community to come onboard who may think differently than the people who originally voted. I think 6 months to a year should pass before it is offered again. Thoughts? Chadlupkes 15:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC) :It should definitely be at least 3 months, no questioning that. 6 months would probably be optimal, I think. Jfing[[Wikipedia:User:Jfingers88/Esperanza|'e']]rs88 16:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC) ::It will depend on how fast our 'population' increases. We had an initial surge in July and August, but it's really boiled down to around 10-15 people, with only about 8 that show up for votes. I'm still trying to spread the word. If we get a bunch of new people coming in to help build a set of national or specific election pages or work on an issue page, policies that affect their work might be reconsidered faster. We could take an informal poll for reconsideration every 6 months or so, and watch for significant changes in the electorate. Chadlupkes 16:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)